The classic Political Potpourri forum is back by popular demand! ~SEPARATE REGISTRATION IS NO LONGER NEEDED; ALL REGISTERED BUZZBOARD USERS ARE WELCOME TO POST!~ Be forwarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**

Scroll down to the comments and you see the gentleman who refers to one party as “the ‘Rat party” . Or this comment

A Fox News viewer went on their website and wrote:Fox News is my favorite news network because it's the biggest and highest rated which you might call the most mainstream but also not part of the mainstream media somehow because that would be bad

Then someone else starts pontificating on the traits of Fascism and trying to connect the dots.

Nothing will ever change until these two totally disparate sides decide to sit down together and converse, discuss and consider more than one side of an argument. Some days I worry that Civil War 2 is coming.

I wouldn't be too worried about what you read in the comments sections of various news sites - I heard just yesterday of a study that found that on Twitter, 80 percent of all tweets come from 10 percent of the user base. I suspect similar numbers apply to comments. The loudest and whiniest people out there are far more likely to post comments than are most "normal" people.

I also don't think the country is quite as sharply divided as it was just a year ago. The media would have you believe that is the case, but I'm not so sure.

Currently, neither side will even consider the opposing viewpoint without screaming "socialism!" or "fascism!" or dismissing anything with "that's just the liberal agenda" or "republiKKKans" which are all ridiculous and do nothing but spiral the ship down the whirlpool.

We can talk about it amongst ourselves all we want, but we need a strong movement with strong leaders. What do you think is the best way to encourage of movement of being reasonable and open to discussion?

I've been trying to work this out for a while. But one thing that I think adds to this problem is that, especially now with social media being as prevalent as it is, nobody can appear to be "weak" or "losing". By extending an olive branch, or a handshake, or even saying "I'm sorry. How do we work this out? Come to an understanding?" makes one appear weak. No one can apologize or work anything out. I'm right, you're wrong. It's like...if I see a pregnant woman, sure, I have the "right" to tell her she's as big as a house, but I don't NEED to exercise that right. And should she get upset, instead of apologizing, I double down and call them "snowflake" and complain "they can't handle it".

Everyone has to be RIGHT. Nobody can back down. Lest they appear to not be BAD. Then you have your internet badasses, making any commentary they want and call names even more because, hey, I don't have to deal with you face to face. It's a sad state of affairs that, frankly, I believe will get worse before it gets better.

That "snowflake" accusation mindset is just ridiculous. As if the world used to be better by this imagined insensitivity toward others, and those snowflakes are bringing the world down with their compassion and desire to make the world better for more people. Outrageous! (And usually the ones who scream snowflake are just as easily offended. Merely mention abortion, criticism of religion, taxes and social programs, criticism of the president, the younger generation, etc and see what happens). I realize it may appear I am guilty of the very thing we're discussing by throwing that in, but I used that as an example of the two-way street we all live on. I really want everyone to be able to communicate and learn from each other.

I try to have these "how can we work it out" discussions with people, and they take it as an opportunity to try to rip me apart, in which case I surrender to avoid the "hassle" of having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, saving my energy for more productive discussions.

Take your signature problem - (and I believe here is where we will probably disagree). You seem to believe that elimination of police entirely is the only solution to the problem of police corruption. Others will violently fight that option. What’s the third solution that can benefit all?

Also, this thread was about modern-day division in this country - not divisions that existed in England well over 200 years ago. Dissent and disagreement are one thing (I agree that we need healthy disagreement and dissent), but division is another concept entirely. The last major fight we had over division in this country was that over racial segregation. There are many divides in this country today - including between racial, gender, wealth, etc. Saying you are encouraged by division, without clarification, when those are the divides we have today, is going to get you labeled a troll.

His problem is that he makes broad generalizations about all police based on the actions of the 2 or 3 percent that are bad apples. My family has had a run-in with a few bad apples (in fact it led to 7 years of litigation in federal court) but I don't use that to hate the other 97 percent of policemen. I know almost nothing about LL101, but I would venture a guess that the average police officer puts his/her life on the line with the motive of protecting the innocent people of society more times in a month than LL101 has in his (or her) entire lifetime. To broadly generalize all police officers as being Constitution-hating pigs is, quite frankly, offensive.

Take your signature problem - (and I believe here is where we will probably disagree). You seem to believe that elimination of police entirely is the only solution to the problem of police corruption. Others will violently fight that option. What’s the third solution that can benefit all?

Please do not call me “sir.” That’s not my gender. I have never assumed your gender, nor have I called you one that you intentionally told me not to. Please respect my wishes. As always, I respect your free speech, so you are free to continue to call me whatever you want. I will never try to silence you, nor will I encourage others to do so. I have too much respect for others than to do that.

Please show me where I ever called for the elimination of police, ever said that I hated anyone, or called for any kind of violence. Just one.

His problem is that he makes broad generalizations about all police based on the actions of the 2 or 3 percent that are bad apples. My family has had a run-in with a few bad apples (in fact it led to 7 years of litigation in federal court) but I don't use that to hate the other 97 percent of policemen. I know almost nothing about LL101, but I would venture a guess that the average police officer puts his/her life on the line with the motive of protecting the innocent people of society more times in a month than LL101 has in his (or her) entire lifetime. To broadly generalize all police officers as being Constitution-hating pigs is, quite frankly, offensive.

Once, on a picket line, I was beat up and arrested by cops. But I've also had some good experiences with cops. By and large, I would rather have a police force around than not.